Anarchism, Postmodernity, and Poststructuralism Gabriel Kuhn Published in Randall Amster et al., Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy (New York: Routledge, 2009), pp. 18-25. Postmodernity and poststructuralism have been embraced in many intellectual circles since the late 1980s. Anarchist theory, though, has been a cautious suitor. In fact, a steadfast rebuttal of anything postmodern/poststructuralist has even united some of its most unrelenting foes (cf. Zerzan 1991; Albert n.d.). Since the beginning of the decade, however, there has been an increased interest in postmodernity’s and poststructuralism’s relevance for anarchist thought and praxis. It is the intent of this essay to investigate this interest, including its development and focus as well as its promises and flaws. For the sake of clarity, I want to begin with a terminological distinction, since a curious confusion has plagued the discussions around postmodernity/poststructuralism for nearly two decades. The terms “postmodernity” and “poststructuralism” have different origins and have carried different discursive connotations until they began to be used increasingly as synonyms. The meanings of terms do of course depend on their use and circulation within a community of speakers and any attempt at defining their “true” meaning only makes us look foolish. At the same time, it seems natural in intellectual debates to use the terminological tools at hand in ways that allow for somewhat differentiated rather than oversimplified discussion. For example, I am convinced that the sweeping generalizations that sometimes characterize anarchist opposition to anything postmodern/poststructuralist would vanish once a simple distinction was made: that between an indeed irritating and politically non- or counter-productive jargon in the name of “postmodern thought” on the one hand; and radically inspired poststructuralist (and sometimes postmodern) critiques of the Platonic tradition and its repressive implications on the other. In the context of this essay, “postmodernity” will refer to a socio-cultural condition, namely the one outlined by Jean-François Lyotard in La condition postmoderne, in which Lyotard (1979) applied an attribute mainly branded in architecture and the arts to society as a whole. An anarchist engagement with postmodernity would hence consist of an anarchist analysis of this condition – potentially helping anarchists to understand the socio-cultural dynamics of postmodern times, anarchists’ positions within these, and the implied challenges as well as possibilities for the struggle against the State. “Poststructuralism,” on the other hand, will refer to a body of theory – developed by Lyotard, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Jacques Derrida, and others – aimed at breaking the intellectual sway of structuralist thought in France following the events of May 1968.1 An anarchist engagement with poststructuralism would hence consist of an anarchist evaluation of the usefulness of poststructuralist theory for anarchism’s aims. The distinction between a socio-cultural condition and a body of theory becomes somewhat blurred by the term postmodernism, which is most commonly understood as a movement of thought embracing the postmodern condition and attempting to strengthen pluralist theory – thereby echoing a main feature of the poststructuralist endeavor. However, “postmodernism” remains a much wider term than “poststructuralism” and is used as a reference for everything from Jenny Holzer’s conceptual art to Jonathan Kramer’s music theory to Richard Rorty’s liberal 1 It is important to note that the term “poststructuralism” has never been more precise than sketched here. It has never been anything but a term of convenience that amalgamates a number of individual writers who, without doubt, have worked along common themes and with shared ambitions, but who never set out to form a “movement,” let alone one called “poststructuralism.” politics. In fact, it might today include every expression of thought that does not navigate around pillars of God, human nature, or historical determinism. In such light, “poststructuralism” is indeed, in the words of Lewis Call (2002: 14), best understood as “a variety of postmodern thinking.” ANARCHISM AND POSTMODERNITY Postmodernity has left its mark on anarchism in various subtle ways. Concepts like those of a “small-a anarchism” – championed by David Graeber (2002), Starhawk (2004), and others – do, for example, distinctly resonate with times in which references to anything potentially “meta- narrative” seem to indicate an ungainly lack of intellectual refinement. Yet, surprisingly little has been published in terms of explicit anarchist reflections of and on postmodern culture. Lewis Call’s Postmodern Anarchism (2002) is by far the most extensive effort in this respect. After sketching a “postmodern matrix” and suggesting anarchism to be “a political philosophy which seems perfectly well suited to the postmodern world,” Postmodern Anarchism embarks on its journey to the “metastrand” of the indicated matrix, namely “the strand of science fiction literature known as cyberpunk” (2002: 11). In the course of this journey we encounter a generous evocation of Friedrich Nietzsche, a refreshing reading of Jean Baudrillard, and a widely acclaimed final chapter on the science fiction of William Gibson and Bruce Sterling whose writings exemplify for Call “a radical politics for the new millennium: a politics of postmodern anarchism” (2002: 24). Call’s work might not allow for the most spectacular theoretical leaps, but it certainly stands as an important marker for the possibilities of anarchist moments entrenched in the postmodern condition. Unfortunately, few such additional markers can be found. Then again, the question arises whether we still need them when “postmodernity” itself becomes questionable as an apt description of our socio-cultural make-up. Hardt and Negri’s Empire (2000) is just one recent model that could be interpreted as an indication of the necessity to re-employ the long shunned “meta-narratives” in order to properly understand the workings of current social, cultural, political and economic dynamics. At the same time, the authors’ concept of a “multitude” as the most promising force of resistance – in its inherent plurality – might still be deemed a “postmodern” concept. If anything, this only goes to show that the complexity of the historical trajectory supersedes neat categories like “modernity” and “postmodernity,” and that (with particular regard to the relationship between anarchism and postmodernity) a re-evaluation of the analytical usefulness of the postmodern notion itself seems paramount. ANARCHISM AND POSTSTRUCTURALISM Todd May’s book The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism (1994), building on an earlier essay entitled “Is Post-Structuralist Political Theory Anarchist?” (1989), is usually referenced as the first broad attempt to fuse traditional anarchist thought with poststructuralist theory. Whether this claim holds true or not, the book must certainly count as a major contribution to the respective effort. At its core lies the conviction that “traditional anarchism,” while an important ethical and political guide, has theoretically been embedded in the “naturalist” and “essentialist” philosophy of the 19th century and its many epistemological shortcomings. Poststructuralism then enters the scene with a “political theory” that “replaces traditional anarchism’s a priori” (May 1994: 87) and that has the ability to infuse anarchism with new analytical and theoretical vigor. In 2001, Australian Saul Newman published From Bakunin to Lacan, which recapped many of the contentions in May’s work. Where the books differ is in the direction they take once they set out on what Newman elsewhere called the “salvage operation poststructuralism is to do on anarchism” (Newman 2003a). While May – via Lyotard, Foucault and Deleuze – ends up discussing analytic moral philosophy, Newman – by way of Stirner [who, according to Newman (2001:6) “provides an obvious but hitherto unexplored connection with poststructuralism”], Foucault, Deleuze/Guattari, and Derrida – finds his savior in Lacan who helps him “to theorize a non-essentialist outside to power” (2001: 160). While the publication of May’s book had gone more or less unnoticed, From Bakunin to Lacan was instantly acknowledged as an innovative contribution to anarchist discourse. The reasons for this discrepancy I see as threefold: (1) by 2001, poststructuralist theory had become such a strong and present player in many theoretical fields that anarchist intellectuals could hardly maintain their categorical rejection of it without appearing hopelessly anachronistic; (2) Newman’s book was published within the post-Seattle “New Anarchism” euphoria which granted immediate and almost unconditional interest to anything hyped as “anarchist” and “new;” and (3) Newman had come up with a fancy and intriguing label for his position, namely that of “postanarchism” – a label he continues to promote and has most recently defined as indicating “a project of renewing the anarchist tradition through a critique of essentialist identities and the assertion instead of the contingency of politics” (Newman 2007: 4). As with May’s book, From Bakunin to Lacan is an important and inspiring exploration of the value of poststructuralist thought for anarchism. There remain certain theoretical problems, however. The most